ArticlePloS one2025
Attributing non-specific symptoms to cancer in general practice: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-specific cancer symptoms are challenging to interpret in general practice. They can be attributed to a wide range of other conditions and delay the cancer diagnosis, increasing the risk of poor outcomes.
aimTo summarise existing knowledge on the attribution of non-specific symptoms to potential cancer in general practice and identify gaps in the literature.
methodWe conducted a scoping review, following Joanna Briggs Institute's guidance and reported according to the PRISMA for scoping reviews checklist. Non-specific symptoms were defined based on NICE guidelines for suspected cancer. We systematically searched six databases and search engines for original papers, systematic reviews and doctoral theses. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, full-texts and reference lists. Included articles were then uploaded to the AI-based tool ResearchRabbit to identify further papers. Findings were synthesised using the Refined Andersen Model of Total Patient Delay.
resultsEight studies were included. These addressed fatigue, recurrent infection, pallor, weight loss, and deep vein thrombosis, with general practitioners (GPs) defining the latter two as cancer-specific. Factors influencing attribution to cancer included pre-existing conditions, the number, type and combination of symptoms as well as GPs' gut feeling and knowledge, patients' concern, and the frequency of medical visits.
conclusionThis scoping review identified a limited number of studies on the attribution of non-specific symptoms to potential cancer in general practice, with symptoms such as pruritus and new-onset diabetes not addressed. It highlights the need for further research into GPs diagnostic reasoning related to non-specific cancer symptoms, especially on under-researched symptoms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.